Could the general election screw up the Census?

// January 6th, 2011 // No Comments » // 2011, yes minister

It was noted to me the other day in conversation that there might be a small problem with having the general election in March. The thing is see, we’re going to have several thousand people knocking on doors across the country on the serious business of distributing and then collecting (though that would happen in April) census forms and the last thing we would want is for them to be hunted for the doors of Ireland by people who thought they were canvassers for the election.

So remember to answer your door as while it might not be that effing politician you were expecting, it could instead be a helpful census taker who is only trying to do us all a service. And please don’t think of eating any of them.

Not all older people are in the same boat

// October 22nd, 2010 // No Comments » // irish politics

There’s a new ad to defend the state pension (and all associated supports – see how they slipped that line in there). It’s slick, it tugs at the heartstrings and it will most likely be effective but it’s wrong in its demand that we view every last person over the pension age as being in the same situation. It’s that mentality that lead to us giving a medical card to everyone last person over 70 from millionaires on down at a time when children weren’t entitled to a medical card.

We pay people a state pension because it is the right thing to do and is a mark of civilised society. It is not, as people like to make out, a case of them getting their money back or anything of the sort, you don’t get it because you deserve it for living a productive life and where you contributed to your community.

There is a very dangerous emphasis in this petition on the idea that all older people paid for their pensions through their working lives. They didn’t. They paid for the pensions of those older people alive at the time they were working, far fewer of them than now, and at a comparatively much lower level than now too. And whisper it but many of them didn’t pay any PRSI contributions at all towards their state pension. We give it alike to people who never did a rap of work, and spent most of their lives in the pub and to those who shouldered huge burdens and hardly ever knew a days rest neither of whom would have made PRSI contributions. That isn’t why they’re getting the state pension, that’s not why they’re entitled to it.

We need a proper, grown up debate about pensions, how to provide for them and what they are intended to do. We’ve needed it for a long time and while in the middle of a recession is probably the worst place to have it, we still need to have it. That includes make the tax deductions for private pensions deductible at the standard rate rather than the higher rate of tax as suggested by Fr. Sean Healy, Fintan O’Toole and others. It also means that people need to realise that their state pension is not something that they paid for in its entirety but is instead something they contributed only a portion towards and that with the considerable increases of the last 15 years what they are getting is far more than they ever put into it. And it is from the coffers of those who are still working now that it is being paid not from some magical pot of money that was sent aside for them.

There is a myth in Ireland that all older people once they reach retirement age turn into magical folks, let’s remember that the highest cohort who voted for FF at each of the last elections were older people. Let’s remember that not all of them made Ireland what is today, and those that did didn’t always make it a better place.

How might you run an election over Christmas?

// July 19th, 2010 // 1 Comment » // elections

The date of  budget 2010 was Dec 9th 2009 which would imply that budget day 2011 is scheduled for Dec 8th 2010, if the governmwent were to fall on the budget vote we would have an election campaign taking place over the Christmas holiday period with polling perhaps falling on Jan 13th?

The 2007 election was held on 24 May 2007 after Bertie called for the dissolution on 29th April  - a Sunday. The election campaign took place over a gap of 21 working days or so. Bank holidays and Sundays are not included in the minimum/maximum period that a campaign must take place over. Christmas has 3 bank holidays but many people take considerably more time off over that period. Would it in fact suit the government better to have the election campaign over a 4 week period almost 2 of which would could not be campaigned during for practical reasons? Or if it is looking like the budget will not pass is it better to campaign for as long as possible in advance of polling day or to have the campaigning time as truncated as possible so that the opposition can’t convince the public which way to jump?

The end of Enda

// June 11th, 2010 // No Comments » // enda kenny

He has been an excellent leader of the party and has the qualities to make a great Taoiseach but the electorate have fixed in their minds a view of him that is inaccurate, not based on his performance and even at times simply unfair. Yet it would seem that a large portion of them are not for shifting in this view.

It would appear that the public has decided that Enda is the soccer guy who clears out the dead wood, sets up the youth academy, brings through new young players and buys well even wins a few cups but having done all that just can’t seem to connect with them and the squad he has assembled in order to win the league. It’s frustrating and undeserved for Enda Kenny but I think that if the government wins the confidence motion next Tuesday that we as a party should immediately make a smooth transition to a new leader in the form of Richard Bruton and look over the course of the summer to iron out a deal with the Greens that transitions them out of government ASAP. Offer them 3 Taoiseach’s nominee seats in the next Seanad for 3 of their TDs that lose their seats to let them recover as a party in opposition (we’re going to win the Seanad elections anyway with a minimal amount of cllr discipline) and we could look at implementing some of the outstanding Green policies from the PfG that aren’t that awful. A properly constituted directly elected Mayor for Dublin isn’t a bad idea, nor is reform of the planning system.

What the poll shows is our problem that FG are obviously not getting the party’s message across well enough. I get quite annoyed at some of our spokespeople for the their inability to get across a cohesive and consistent narrative of what a vote for FG would mean and what the change that would result from a FG win would be like.

Enda Kenny’s leadership isn’t separate from that but nor it is the whole story.

The rise in Labour’s support is quite impressive for what it is but also very interesting for what it isn’t. It’s not an endorsement of Labour’s policies because they don’t have any. They have a series of well expressed if ill defined goals but not detailed policies to achieve them.

I think the truly massive implication from this poll and other recent ones is that the electorate are hugely volatile. FF have lost the faith of the public and neither FG nor Labour or SF have 100% convinced them to date otherwise Labour would have been over 30% much earlier. There are a lot of voters who are open to listening to a new message and it would seem they are taste testing at the moment. And we should take our lucky stars that we don’t have a rabid party of the right looking for scapegoats amongst racial minorities or minority sections of society.

What this poll does prove once and for all is the folly of many left leaning people in their desire to get FG off the pitch so that a real left/right contest could emerge. It has always been the fact that FF were on Labour’s territory that prevented that sort of contest coming about.

Should FG change leader? I don’t believe so but the question is now will FG change leader? I think it is more possible than it was 6 months ago. There won’t be any movement (with that I’ve probably just damned Enda’s chances of staying on) on the FG leadership this side of the no confidence motion. After all it is entirely possible for McDaid and McGuinness to go walk about, for Lowry to decline to support Cowen (anyone miss his Oxegen ticket give-away?) and Jackie to fail to make the train up from Kerry. And were that to happen all bets are off. For now though it looks to me like the End has started.

We’re a drunk blaming a step for breaking our faces

// April 3rd, 2010 // 5 Comments » // the collapse

Looking at the Late Late doing one of those panels that were so much part of the dark days of 1980s it struck me that as a nation we are a drunk who blames a step he wasn’t expecting for the fall that smashed his face in. And our automatic response appears to be to call one of those numbers about if we’d had a fall or trip at work to get compensation of our situation. It’s because we were drunk on property that the step, whether you say that step was Lehman Bros., or Bear Stearns (we remembers them now!), banks existing on the overnight markets or the problems of sub-prime lending more generally. The plain fact is we were bound to hit something at some point, and we were simply weren’t prepared to deal with it. Because our government chose not to bother and the electorate rewarded them for not doing so. You get votes for opening facilities not for providing the funding to use them.

Ger Colleran alluded to it at one point but none of the others really picked up on it, we’re at a Weimar moment in Irish history. Either we find a way or a way will find us, it won’t be fascism as people know it but it will be more restrictive and brutish and nasty. That brutish, nasty, me first mentality is already out there. It was part of the 80s culture of getting ahead (that means leave others behind) and it’s lauded even now when it hides in plain view by proclaiming itself as being about straight talking but which it isn’t. It’s about shouting down others, while taking up one’s self.

And all the while the Irish body politic is stumbling around holding its bloodied face, and pointing and railing at the step for being there. And probably blaming the council for putting it there…right outside our own door…on our property.

An Irish liberal party – what about a progressive caucus instead

// February 22nd, 2010 // No Comments » // Uncategorized

In performing a little exercise set for me by Jason O Mahony I was given to thinking about the calls that come every once in a while from some quarters that we should have new Liberal party or similar in the absence of the PDs. I would oppose such an idea for a number of reasons that I won’t bore you with right now but I do think there might be an opening not for a new political party as such but rather for the emergence of the American style caucus model in Irish politics.

The point would be to have a broad viewpoint, in this case, one that is liberal/libertarian and then at election time to endorse individual candidates who were amenable to those beliefs. The caucus would literally talk, on-line for the most part, about policies and political principles that it should advocate and seek support for.

I’m not suggesting that we’d get too many takers at the outset from the existing public reps, in particular TDs, but it might be better anyway to start by appealing to members of all parties and none.

So I might, in the next short while, try and drop some worms in the water and see if anyone bites.

A short history of the economy in 80s Ireland

// February 5th, 2010 // 3 Comments » // Uncategorized

I normally don’t post links to p.ie but this obviously took too much effort and is too excellent not to reach as many people as possible. Massive kudos to Edo. Full extract below but better to comment on p.ie

Edo “Oh why am I bothering to engage with this thread………..the itch has to be scratched I guess.

The 83 – 87 Fitzgerald governments economic performance has to be taken in a variety of contexts for one to come to some kind of an objective conclusion – then again this being P.ie – context and objectivity are a foreign country – subjectivity and the opportunity to quote out of context is the modus operandi for most here, who judging by their contributions were mostly in short trousers or a twinkle in their daddy’s eye at this time and seem to have a major adversion to actually doing a bit of reading and studying anything except newspaper headlines and modern day accepted myth about this era.

If one is looking for a significant turning point in the management of Ireland’s financial and economic affairs – I think you have to go back to the 1970 budget where Minister George Colley became the first Irish Minister of Finance to run a current and ongoing budget deficit. Up until this time – since the foundation of the state in 1922 – Ireland had always balanced its books -It was a net creditor – an exporter of capital – in its financial dealings with the rest of the world up to then – unbelievable I know – but a fact – under Blythe,McEntee,O’Kelly,Aitken,McGilligan,Ryan,Swee tman and Lynch – all under the stern conservative secretaries of the Dept of finance like O’Brien,Brennan and McElligott and even the watchful eye of Whittaker – Ireland balanced its books- at whatever cost. All governments from the 1920s to the early 60′s were run on this principle – balanced books, small government and we spent whatever we earned – primarily in agricultural surpluses – in a way – for the first 40 years of our independence- the most important numbers defining our economic well-being was not the annual budget – but the prices for Irish meat and dairy produce on the auction floors of Billingsgate (The wholesale London food markets).

Now for all my FF friends here -many of whom are newly converted zealots to the joys of financial thrift and prudence – while balancing the books produced intense orgasms in the Institute of Chartered Accountancy and made Ireland look good in the eyes of Whitehall ( the overwhelming need to look good in front of the Brits and imitate and finally outdo the Brits at whatever the Brits were currently doing -from sports to economic policy- no matter how crazy or backward the policy or that it was bound to end in falling off a cliff – we Irish could out do the Brits in anything -((something that hasn’t changed it would appear to anybody who objectively witnessed our property boom))- was a countrywide phenomenon regardless of political affiliation,religion or class – this need to ape Britain at every juncture – no matter how unsuited to Ireland – was to have major ramifications) – the negative effects of this policy were very clear too – domestic economic activity was subdued and decreased and didn’t recover until the mid 60′s – the result of this was the usual spiralling circle of decreased economic activity, resulting in lower tax takes, resulting in cutbacks in spending and tax increases, which resulted in capital moving abroad, which resulted in a further credit tightening, which resulted in the further decreasing economic activity,which resulted in diminishing tax returns, which resulted in.. yeh know how the story goes………..are you watching Mr Lenihan?… we’ve played this tune before and it took us the bones of 40 years to change the record! -

All in All – even given FF increased spending in social welfare as it reversed Blythe’s cutbacks – it was paid for by higher taxes on higher earning and capital – Irish economic activity plateaued for the bones of 30 years – its stability kept in place due to the fact that we borrowed f.all for anything, emigration,a basic healthcare system and a poor diet kept the dole and pension queues small and short lived (its gas when you look back on Gov papers from the”Emergency” years – guess the one thing that had the Government sh^tting it and preparing for the worst and words like ” it could sink the state” being said around the cabinet table? – German invasion? – nope – British invasion? – nope – it was the fear that the 250-300,000 Irish men and women who joined the British armed forces and worked in the factories , would all come home at the end of war when Britain demobilized,join the dole queue and sink the state!- I kid you not! – all in all it just about sums up Irish economic policy during this time – keep it cheap -keep them poor and pure – pray for good agricultural prices and make sure any potential troublemakers are on a boat out of here (Irelands own Transportation policy)

It was lemasses rise to Taoiseach, a changing of the old guard at the both the cabinet table and at cabinet secretary level and lemass’s determination to break the previous cycle – through borrowing for investment and state intervention – that started to set the economic story of Ireland for the next 50 years. The 60s saw a period of economic growth with the liberalisation of trade barriers – the effects of the killing off a lot of private enterprise that had been protected previously under tariffs was camouflaged by the arrival of FDI and the expansion of the state and state sponsored enterprises – the arrival of Television increased the populations desires for the better things in life – the fact that Northern Ireland was clearly much better off materially, with superior social services was something that also irked – there was also much union agitation for higher wages on an annual basis – which were caved into most of the time and were going to be unsustainable in the long run unless economic performance – particularly exports radically improved – something that Whittaker clearly flagged on his retirement from the Dof in 1965 – by 1966 the bloom had come off Irelands export expansion and Englands devaluation in 1968 didn’t help matters either

Fancy that eh? – A FF Taoiseach and a Dub – even a born northsider and man of the people leading the country into an unsustainable domestic consumer boom built on the balanced books left to him by his predecessors and a minor export boom that quickly fizzled out – yet left with the higher wages and costs and a domestic credit party so drunk that they didnt realise the bus that brought them had left and they would need expensive taxis to get home ?- I mean where have we heard that before eh – I’ve always wondered if Lemass saw this coming and decided to get out while the going was good – funny the parallels with Ahern isn’t it tho?

That said – the 60′s “boom” was nothing compared to the late 90′s – and thats why Lemass is revered rather than burnt in effigy as Ahern will be – but it did start a worrying trend of borrowing for consumption rather than serious investment – Lemass was on to the right idea – but he underestimated the Irish people’s capacity for the quick stroke instead of patience,long term investment and delayed gratification and our wonderful capacity for disappearing up our own posteriors and believing that the world owed us a living cos we’re Irish (something 40 years of nation myth building and isolation did nothing to mitigate) – the 60s and the advent of modern communications had opened our eyes to how sh^t poor we actually were in comparison to the rest of Europe – especially in living standards – we wanted some of that – it was a pity we compared ourselves to Germany, the Scandinavian countries and the Benelux – a more accurate comparison would have been our current comrades in the PIGS troope – Portugal,Greece and Spain – also the 1968 revolts gave our union brothers – a cranky narrow-minded workshy bolshie lot even before then – even more succour for industrial disruption in their unquenchable desire for more pay for less work and to hell with the consequences. In short we wanted German living standards on a Greek level of economic sophistication and productivity and anybody who would tell us any differently could go to hell or into opposition in the Dail – the stage was set for the 70s and 80s – auction politics (never far from our hearts since Strongbow set about dividing and ruling after 1169 when you think of it) big time! – the other big thing about the 60′s was the reversal of immigration and the fact that we started to multiply like rabbits again – with consequences for the future.

Colley was the first to start the serious borrowing after our economy gave up the ghost of trying to keep up with our desires. In a desire to stop the 70′s being socialist and with a little help from the penultimate constituency gerrymander and the promise of a liberal helping of “whatever you’re having yourself” -FF comfortably won the 1969 election – seeing as we were only borrowing a “little bit” – I think we were talking 0.8% of GDP – sure why don’t we borrow another little bit while we wait for the economy to recover – its only around the corner! – well Lynch, god bless him – finance was never his strong point – even when he was Minister of Finance (then again at least he didn’t cash his paycheque in the Dail bar and keep it in a tin under his bed saving for his kids education when you could have got 10+ % interest in the Banks at the time – knowing f.all about economics or money is no impediment to being minister for finance when you’re in FF obviously) -in fairness he (lynch) with the North going Supernova and negotiating entry into the EEC obviously had other things on his mind – yet the economy did not pick up – exports were flatlining – and the babyboomers of the late 60′s and 70′s started to make their appearances in the demand for social services ( i was born in 72 and there were 38 in my class in a small rural village) – so we kept on borrowing in the hope that EU entry would help correct our finances – Lynch went to the polls in 73 under the reasonable expectation of winning but got pipped at the line by an FG/Lab effort that got it its sh^t together that made the even more attractive promises to gild the lilly of the average voter and get the economy “moving” again and put manners on the slowly climbing inflation and unemployment rate – with EEC membership and increased revenues from agricultural sales looking a given – it seemed a reasonable bet.

Yon kippur 1973 came and went and so did the world economy in the same space of time and that was the end of that. The rocketing increase in the price of fuel and disruption that went with it in the aftermath of the war and embargo- allied with the fact that US ways already weary with its Vietnam commitments – pushed the world economy into freefall, surging inflation and massive borrowing to get the economies back into the black – This was the high season for that bastardised version of Keynesianism that appeared in the 60′s – for Ireland and Richie Ryan – the minister for Hardship – it was a very difficult time – 73 to 76 was very difficult with increased industrial unrest, requiring tax increases and a severe struggle to get borrowing under control ,let alone start decreasing it – by 1977 a degree of very very fragile stability was returning – increased and unexpected revenues from CAP were helping prop up what was elsewhere a very very dodgy scene – our export earnings were by nowhere near keeping up with our demands for more disposable incomes to spend on mainly imports and and better and more social services.

In 77 – Cosgrave went to the polls , like lynch in 73, in reasonable expectation of winning -given, by the standards of that crazy decade, things were relatively stable, and materially, the average citizen never had it so good to borrow McMillans quip. like 73 – Fianna Fail ,a very poor opposition, desperate to get back in government – promised the world and the kitchen sink to everybody and his donkey – reading the manifesto today – man – was there anybody with a calculator within a 100 mile radius when they were drawing up that piece of infamy? – did they seriously believe that this level of borrowing could be sustained – on top of what was already being borrowed! -

It earned 90 seats and government – Martin O Donoghue – the author of the manifesto was given his own “super” makey-uppey Department , with Colley again in Finance – It became obvious in mid 79 that we were reaching the end of our credit limits and that the borrowing level could not be sustained – the EEC were sounding warnings – then the Arabs threw another spanner in the works by jacking up the price of oil again -starting off another world recession – the unions – particularly , the public sector were after inflation busting payrises (not realising that it was this that was considerably contributing to the inflation spike – or did they care?) – also with our entrance into the ERM – the bonuses from CAP came to an end and prices started to fall due to serious overproduction – a proposal to impose a 2% levy on the farmers came to a quick and decisive end when Colley was forced to back down – with Haughey one of the main populist dissenters . Regardless Colley was gone by 80 – Haughey was in charge – and he knew that we wouldn’t get the same deal off the IMF and international financiers that he had got off AIB – ie 50% of our Public Debt written off – so in midst of all the strikes etc etc -he went and gave his famous broadcast – it was very convincing for a good proportion of the population hearthily sick of the state we had got ourselves in – So with a comfortable majority and fair approval from the electorate – why the F. did he turn around and do exactly the opposite? – caving in to every feckin sponger who turned up at his doorstep? – were the internal tensions within the FF party that bad? was the militant wing of the labour party that much of a threat? – looking at FG manifestos from 81/82 – FG were offering leadership,trust ,Garrett and tough decisions – but very little by the way of financial bribes – why did Haughey have to go on a final financial bender ? – Its a real pity that easily the most gifted,controversial , yet insecure Taoiseach we ever had never wrote an autobiography or published a diary -even for posthumous release – we’ll never know the answer.

So thats the prologue for Garrett Fitz’s reign of infamy in the 1980s – public borrowing totally and utterly out of control -forecast for 35% of GDP in 1981 until the election and Bruton managed to get it down to under 30% – rampant inflation -the price of taytos went up on a weekly basis it appeared to me- rising unemployment -the economy crumbling and totally uncompetitive where a direct phonecall from Donegal to Dublin would have to be arranged the day before with the local operator -the population totally sugared out of their heads on unsustainable bribes -a rising population looking for and requiring vastly more than the creaking education and health services could provide – the unions who though they ran the country and coalition with a unruly and divided labour party suffering from militant infestation and constantly looking over its shoulder for fear of being out flanked on the left – Dont forget kids- there really was a Soviet Union back then with real nuclear missiles and most of the left here truely believed that it was the land to be imitated and that capitalism was on its knees after the turbulent 70′s -one more push and it would fall over – over half the membership of the labour party and everybody further left than them believed this – if the 70s didnt go socialist – well then the 80′s were definitely going to.

Given this – it was no surprise that Brutons budget fell – Kemmy couldn’t stomach it , neither could many in the Labour party so it was kind of convenient in a uniquely Irish moral kind of a way that we could nail it on Brutal Bruton and his tax on kids shoes – I not going to talk much about Haughey’s brief interval in 82 – suffice to say not much happened – the debt kept on going up as Haughey kept McSharry on the leash and the workers party wouldn’t vote for the budget that was needed and the rest of the time was total GUBU and internal FF infighting on live TV every night. Not surprisingly, as funny amused and totally enrapted as we were by the FF Telly Novella -if the situation hadn’t been so unbelievably dire I think we would have stuck with FF -it was great gas around then- political infighting and intrigue,terrorists everywhere,kidnappings,fingers being cut off, real snow, betting on how late the train would be into the station ,if it didn’t break down or go on strike,etc etc etc – Jesus it was like living in the episode of the A-Team where they go off to some third world banana republic – the people wearily turned to boring FG but of course gave them the delusional brothers for company- the stats do speak for themselves – to keep the government an ongoing concern and the uppiddy and short-fused socialists on board – compromises had to be made between a short sharp shock or a more transitional approach – the immediate effect of such austerity measures was an immediate rise in unemployment and emigration as uncompetitive and hopelessly dependent domestic industry started to die off – the world recession saw the end of motor manufacturing and the first wave of FDI leave these shores too – but were replaced by HP,Intel and others putting down roots – making these jobs gold-dust – the unions went ape at every opportunity – but after 1984 and the vision of Thatcher started to sober up – its no co-incidence that it was after this time that the Gov got the leeway to start serious cutbacks and that inflation dropped away from over 20% in 1981 to 4% in 1987 – the hard medicine was being dispensed and the country was not enjoying it – but the EC and IMF approved and Ireland’s credit rating slowly began to turn – in 1987 – Garrett FitzGerald could point to a much better record in managing the economy than any gov since the 1960s – but once again the population voted for the party that promised” to put money back in your pocket” and boldly proclaimed from Billboards the country over that ” cuts hurt the aged, the sick and the poor”

Sure – The Garrett Fitz gov could have done better – with 20/20 hindsight – the non-implimenation of the Telsis report and labour blocking Bolands reform of the public sector come to mind and they boobed big time falling for AIB’s bluff over ICI- but as we say these days – they were where they were.

Anybody who thinks that people voted for FF to implement the continued progamme of cutbacks and economies that they did in 1987 -is completely out of their minds and is denying reality – Haughey’s populist opposition during 82 to 87 is a shameful episode in FF’s history. He threw the FF manifesto out the window and let McSharry off the leash – because he had no other choice – The EC,IMF and even Dukes and Fitzgerald in private conversation with Charlie during the interim left him in no doubt that the hard medicine had to be followed – anyway he had become a figure of hate on the left and none of them would support him so he had rule as a minority gov with only the support of FG and the PDs on economic matters only – now, with only his backbenchers to fear – he went and did the right thing.

The big question – that shall forever remain unanswered is – what would Haughey have done if he had won an overall majority on the populist ,more borrowing ,more spending manifesto that he ran on in 1987?

Its a very good question!

then main lesson to be learned from all of this ? – if we have to borrow – we borrow for investment – not consumption – as relevant in 2010 as it was 1960- and that the population have to be educated into where wealth actually comes from – ie not the government or feckin houses.

Context Context Context folks – trying to analyse and comment on history or anything by isolating it chronologically is a total waste of time”

Killian Forde and the Moguls of Irish politics

// January 11th, 2010 // No Comments » // Uncategorized

The departure/defection/eloping of Cllr Killian Forde from Sinn Fein to the Labour party appears to be causing considerably more discussion that the earlier leavings of Christy Burke or Louise Minihan.

While this is perhaps because he has left and joined another party, it is also possibly because it was more about policy and the party’s overall direction rather than what was happening on the ground in particular wards or constituencies. We’re all aware that Christy Burke was less than impressed with the shenanigans around the Dublin Central by-election and the party’s support or not of his efforts given that they still favoured the eventual election of Mary Lou McDonald come the general election.

Sinn Fein made a major mistake in 2004 in overselling the level of service that part time cllrs could be reasonable expected to deliver – for all the talk that there is of what cllr are paid, it is not a full time position (it was never designed to be as part of our democrat institutions). There is a considerable disconnect between the life of the SF activist in the north who see nothing wrong with committing yourself full-time for a roughly minimum wage return. If you were prepared to spend time in prison away from your family and friends as some were, then living on the minimum wage serving your community appears to be little enough of a sacrifice. Yet in the south that mindset doesn’t exist in large part because the south has not been shaped in the same way as the north by the situation there. Here a person embarking on political involvement not unreasonably expects they will still be able to hold down a proper job in order to be able to provide for a family and to spend time with them. Their expectations would be that a few evenings per week they will have meetings or canvassing, occasionally out during the daytime, and then responding to constituencies queries within a reasonable period, not to provide people with a free advice service 24/7 and be out every evening in all weathers.

That in part is why there have been so many resignations as public reps within SF, too many found that the level of work expected from them by the higher ups in the party (who are mostly northern and mostly full-time) was not compatible with actually being ordinary members of the southern electorate that they were tasked with representing. And this burnout hurt the party in 2009.

But that isn’t the driver behind Killian Forde’s departure, in his case it appears that the problem was different but similar systemic. The way in which SF goes about the business of it’s politics is what caused him to leave, in essence SF operates more like FF with almost all the decision making power in all areas being exercised by a few at the top and with little room for input from those who were not in favour with the leadership. In other words, it’s political nepotism. So wrapped up in the long term and personality driven nature of the republican peace process project the party appears unable to separate a criticism from the individual making the criticism, or the policy being criticised from the person who has advocated it. And that has hampered the party as it tries to come to terms with the fact that the peace process is for many people eaten bread and that other more mundane struggles still exist, like getting a job and making sure that your child can access a good education or health care.

This isn’t a problem unique to SF of course, though it appears more marked at this stage within that organisation. I’ve had my own views for some time on the lack of opportunities for people who are not public reps to have a formal input into the development and review of party policy and I’ve repeated those views to any within my party who will listen. I’m not blind to the real challenges involved in convincing the public of ideas nor to the limitations that there must of necessity be given that it is the elected representatives that must be able to make the case for the advancement of a particular policy platform. After all, it would be completely wrong to compel public reps to argue for policies they do not believe in or have a hand in shaping. But I would hold that we should have a better balance towards involving the members of political parties in decisions about the direction of the parties they are members of and which they do so much to sustain.

I don’t believe nor do I claim that we in Fine Gael have the balance quite right in that regard, but it would seem that SF have the balance completely wrong in the other direction with people, who are not answerable or accountable to the electorate and thus not as in touch with ordinary people, in positions of being in charge of policy formulation and more importantly in the decision making to adopt specific policies. They are like the movie moguls of old, hidden from the view of the paying public but always active behind the scenes shaping what parts the actors get and deciding who will work in this town again. Politics should be the most open and transparent of fields, with people rising and falling by success of the decisions they make and the ideas they create. To belabour the movie comparison still further we need fewer moguls and more auteurs. We need individuals who will present their own original ideas that can be shaped and revised by debate and implementation and who will be rewarded with more opportunities if those ideas deliver for the public. And we need fewer people who merely act as the messengers presenting the ideas of others, disowning responsibility for those ideas that are found wanting, but embracing after the fact those that succeed.

I wouldn’t make the presumption of describing Killian Forde as a friend, though I’ve always found him courteous we’d have significant differences of opinion about the political direction of the country. That is likely to continue to be the case but I’ve found him to be someone that it’s possible to debate political points with because he was interested in the content of politics, unlike some in Irish politics he is able to listen to the arguments put forward by others. This is done, I believe, with a view that I share that only by genuinely listening to others that you can properly find the flaws in their arguments. I wish him well in his future within the Labour party and look forward to having the opportunity at some point of again testing my ideas against his ideas. Because politics is primarily about ideas, not personalities.

An open letter on Seanad Reform

// October 21st, 2009 // 8 Comments » // enda kenny, fine gael, Seanad, seanad eireann, seanad reform

The proposal that Fine Gael policy should be to abolish the Seanad after the next election as announced by the party leader Enda Kenny leaves me in two minds. As a means to put down a marker to the government and the Seanad more generally that reform of politics must happen now or else, it is without equal. This reform can start this side of Christmas by extending the franchise beyond TCD and the NUI by legislation, and with notice of a referendum on wider reform to be put before the people by the time of the next summer recess. The choice is now very stark: reform or die.

I am quite sure that this idea will have widespread popular support amongst the public. Yet the mere popularity of an idea is no reflection on its merit. Though I understand and indeed share in the view that the charade of reform has gone on too long, I also believe that a genuine case can be made for the need for bicameral system given the enormously local focus that the current electoral system forces upon TDs. That is the work that TDs do and must do in order to be elected, and a reduction from 166 to 124 in the number elected in this way will not shift the burden sufficiently to allow major change to occur.

We should be in no doubt; the general public are debating ideas considerably more unthinkable than the mere abolition of the Seanad. If such debate continues to occur in places ignored or unheard by party politics then it will be to the detriment of us all. For the moment I would ask that the policy should be one of reform now or die, rather than die now. For that reason, I would ask that the policy to be adopted be with the proviso that it would be reviewed should substantive political reform be implemented prior to the next general election. We should say that we are planning to act but if the government were to implement, not simply announce or propose or set up a commission or look for another report, but actually implement reforms that will match the parameters of cost reduction, increased powers of scrutiny and compellability for committees as outlined over the last few days then we would be prepared to give it the chance to work. This has the advantage of throwing the focus back onto the lack of action by all the government parties and also sets an immediate clock ticking on the issue with concrete milestones that all the issue to be revisited to our advantage. If there is no move on the university seats by Christmas say then it becomes topical again, if there is no bill and referendum by the summer recess then the same. We can keep the pressure on the government at each step. Let us accept that the Seanad is now drinking in the last chance saloon but we should not be so rude as to eject it before it has finished its drink and had the chance to demonstrate, really demonstrate that it can change.

Yet as someone who stood independently for the Seanad in 2007 in large part on the issue of reform, I am minded that party members of all major Irish political parties have no substantive input into the formulation of party policy. Ard Fheiseanna of all hues have long passed into the realm of mere staged managed speaking and photo opportunities for election candidates. A process colluded in by the media who hype up the merest prospect of any real debate as a sign of in-fighting and division instead of the sign of vibrancy it really is. While a leader should and must have the right to initiate policy ‘on the hoof’ in reaction to events, no events have occurred in the last week requiring such a policy shift.

Now more than ever, we need politics to be a genuine battleground of ideas, new and, if long neglected, old. These ideas must be examined, debated, tested and contested at every step. Political parties exist because they are a means to reflect and express the collective views of their members, from the person at the branch level to the highest of our public representatives. After all, it is those members who have to argue the case for those views to the wider citizenry in the hard slog of canvassing, leafleting, and ultimately by standing as candidates for election. That is why it is necessary for there to exist some real means for their views to be heard in advance of most policy decisions. Party members, even elected representatives, should not be placed in a position of having to ‘like it or lump it’ when it comes to the adoption of policy. At the very least, the views of members should have the chance to be heard on policy.

I will say this, the fact that Fine Gael are the ones who stand to gain most in the next Seanad elections means the party can’t be accused as the government will be of changing the rules because they are going to lose out in the next elections.